|
|
|
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, August 2004, p . 2861-2865, Vol . 48, No . 8 Effects of an Antibiotic Cycling Program on Antibiotic Prescribing Practices in an Intensive Care UnitLiana R . Merz,1,2* David K . Warren,1,3 Marin H . Kollef,4 and Victoria J . Fraser1,3 Division of Infectious Diseases,1 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine,4 Saint Louis University School of Public Health,2 Barnes Jewish Hospital, St . Louis, Missouri3 Received 20 November 2003/ Returned for modification 5 March 2004/ Accepted 25 April 2004
Multiple strategies have been employed to control the spread of these resistant organisms . Strategies to limit antibiotic resistance include increased adherence to infection control measures, therapeutic antibiotic substitution, prudent prescribing of antibiotics, and pharmacy-based computer antibiotic management programs (6, 9, 13, 18) . In addition, the cycling or rotation of antibiotics for empirical therapy has been examined as a method for preventing the development of antimicrobial resistance (2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15) . Data suggest that patterns of antibiotic use influence the development of resistance (11) . Mathematical modeling suggests that heterogeneous antibiotic use may limit the emergence of resistance (15) . Some studies demonstrate that cycling or switching of antibiotics with a gram-negative spectrum of activity may affect antibiotic resistance patterns within the ICU and may decrease the incidence of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative infections and infection-related mortality (5, 12, 14) . In previous studies of antibiotic cycling, factors influencing compliance with rotation protocols have not always been analyzed . To truly understand the impact of antibiotic cycling programs, it is essential to demonstrate the extent of adherence or compliance with the targeted antibiotic switch and to understand the complete exposure of different classes of antibiotics in the study setting both at the individual patient level and at the ICU level . The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of routine cycling of antibiotics for empirical therapy against gram-negative bacteria on the overall pattern of antibiotic use in a medical ICU (MICU) . In addition, we wanted to determine the overall compliance with the antibiotic cycling regimen in the medical ICU and to examine patient characteristics associated with on- and off-cycle antibiotic use .
Data were prospectively collected on all patients admitted to the MICU for more than two calendar days between 14 February 2000 and 30 June 2002 . Data collected included patient demographics, past medical history, hospital and ICU admission dates, and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score upon admission (7) . In addition, process of care information, including use of mechanical ventilation, central venous catheter use, and enteral nutrition data, was collected . Data pertaining to ICU treatment and events, including organ failure and acquisition of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea were recorded . All definitions were selected prospectively as part of the original study design . The definitions for organ dysfunction were those originally described by Rubin and colleagues (17) . Baseline data were collected for 4.5 months (14 February to 30 June 2000) . During this period, the prescription of antibiotics for the empirical coverage of presumed infections by gram-negative bacteria was at the discretion of the ordering physician . Barnes Jewish Hospital has an antibiotic management program, staffed by two full-time clinical pharmacists and infectious disease fellows . During the baseline period, all antibiotic classes with broad-spectrum activity against gram-negative bacteria (i.e., expanded-spectrum and "fourth-generation" cephalosporins [e.g., cefepime], fluoroquinolones, and carbapenems and extended-spectrum penicillins) required approval by the hospital antibiotic management program prior to being dispensed . The only exception to this was cefepime, which could be prescribed for 72 h . After 72 h, the ordering physician had to get approval from the antibiotic management program for continued use of the drug . After the baseline observation period, an antibiotic cycling protocol was then implemented which used four antibiotic classes with gram-negative activity for empirical use cycled every 3 to 4 months over a 2-year period . The four antibiotic classes that were cycled included cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones, carbapenems, and extended-spectrum penicillins . The cycle algorithm was developed with data from current MICU antimicrobial resistance profiles . This four-drug rotation was cycled twice, with the cycle drug changing every 4 months during the first year (rotation 1) and every 3 months during the second year (rotation 2) (Table 1) .
Under the direction of the MICU medical director, clinical pharmacists were responsible for promoting this system to guide antibiotic therapy for patients by using the chosen clinical cycling algorithms . MICU medical staff were educated about the cycling protocol and scheduled antibiotic changes through the use of posters, scheduled in-services, and staff meetings . Orders for all antibiotic classes in the cycle protocol were reviewed daily by a clinical pharmacist and, in cases of empirical treatment, were automatically changed to the cycle antibiotic unless contraindicated (i.e., significant drug allergy or identification of a resistant target pathogen) . Use of the cycle antibiotic was also encouraged for known pathogens if they were sensitive to the antibiotic . Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS, version 11.0, for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Ill.) . Categorical variables were compared by using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate . Wilcoxon rank sum tests were utilized to compare continuous variables . The Bonferroni correction was used in univariate analysis to adjust for multiple comparisons, and a P value of <0.05 upon two-tailed testing was considered significant . Multivariate analysis was performed by using logistic regression . Variables considered for inclusion in multivariate analysis had a P value of less than 0.1 in univariate analysis after Bonferroni correction; variables were included in the final multivariate analysis if significant in the logistic regression model (1) . To account for colinear variables, multiple models were run and the model with the highest log likelihood value was retained as the best explanatory model . The Institutional Review Boards at both Washington University and Saint Louis University approved this study .
Cycling recommendations influenced physician prescribing practices . Cephalosporins were the gram-negative antibiotic class of choice during the baseline period, but in all of the cycle periods, the designated on-cycle drug was used in the greatest quantity (Fig . 2) .
In both cycles 3 and 7, the use of carbapenems increased compared to the baseline period (from 14 to 38%, P < 0.001, and from 14 to 40%, P < 0.001, respectively) . Extended-spectrum penicillin use increased significantly from 5% in the baseline period to 36% during cycle 4 (P < 0.001) . A comparison of patients receiving on-cycle antibiotics to other patients in the cohort is shown in Table 3 . Baseline patient characteristics associated with on-cycle antibiotic use include congestive heart failure (P = 0.03) and increased APACHE II score (P = 0.01) .
Length of ICU stay, APACHE II score, and use of H2 blockers were included in the final multivariate model and independently associated with having received on-cycle antibiotics . Adjusted odds ratios for included variables were significant in the final model (Table 3) .
Predictors of on-cycle antibiotic use were increased severity of illness and increased length of ICU stay . In addition, the use of H2 blockers was significantly associated with not receiving on-cycle antibiotics . All are indicators of increased severity of illness and could explain the need for multiple antibiotics, therefore increasing the likelihood of getting the appropriate drug . In addition, a longer stay in the ICU will increase the likelihood of receiving an on-cycle antibiotic . Cooperation from the unit medical director and the MICU medical and pharmacy staff were essential for the success of this project . Without staff buy in, effective implementation of a cycling protocol would be impossible . While cycling of antibiotics to decrease antimicrobial resistance has been studied previously (2, 12), issues of compliance with the protocol have not been addressed in a consistent manner . The clear definition and designation of antibiotic classes as either on or off cycle, as established by a predetermined cycling protocol and time parameters, allow for the quantitative analysis of the cycling protocol implementation in our study . Due to multidrug therapies for different infections and other treatment situations, drug use at the patient level was not always clearly on or off cycle . Patients could receive both on and off-cycle antibiotics during their MICU stay, adding to the complexity of the data analysis . Patients could be grouped by any on-cycle drug use, any off-cycle drug use, or receipt of both on- and off-cycle drugs . In addition, data were examined at the unit level by using on- and off-cycle antibiotic days to compare the sheer volume of empirical antibiotic use in the MICU . The ability to examine the data in these various ways adds to the strength of the analysis . The level of cycling compliance with the antibiotic rotation schedule was examined by Raymond et al . (16) . In this study, the use of antibiotics to treat infection was classified into one of four compliance categories: three indicated acceptable antibiotic prescribing and the fourth represented an unacceptable deviation from the rotation protocol . The authors reported that only 3% of antibiotic therapy was unacceptable . Limitations to this analytical approach include the small sample size of antibiotics actually examined . Only patients with infections were included in the cohort; therefore, not all antibiotic use in the study unit was examined . Moss et al . examined compliance by totaling the amount of each antibiotic used per month in the study unit in standardized units and then rated the application as either pro or con antibiotic cycling use (12) . Pro use supported the cycling regimen, whereas con use was detrimental to the impact of the regimen . Pro use or cycling compliance in the various cycles ranged from 8 to 82%, indicating that physician prescribing preferences influenced compliance . In their cycling study, Gerding and colleagues were able to effectively alter aminoglycoside use by changing the formulary in a controlled Veterans Affairs Medical Center setting and to also influence antibiotic resistance (5) . Changes in the hospital formulary were implemented to ensure cycling success, and the antibiotic rotations were strictly enforced . Compliance was tracked as the percentage of cycle antibiotic usage by cycle period . Due to vast differences in cycle lengths and the lack of a preset protocol, conclusions about ideal cycling conditions are hard to obtain (4) . In other cycling studies, only the impact of the cycling and not the actual success of the implementation of cycling are addressed (2) . Certain limitations exist in our study design . In the first four cycles (rotation 1), cycles were 4 months in length . During rotation 2, cycles were 3 months in length . While this change might shed light on the question of appropriate cycle length for a successful cycling protocol, it also limits the generalizability of the data . Due to project funding limitations, there was only one cycle of extended-spectrum penicillins . In addition, the study unit has a dedicated clinical pharmacist, a resource many ICUs do not have . While compliance to the cycling protocol was voluntary on the part of the physician, off-cycle orders were often automatically changed by the pharmacist if not contraindicated . Baseline physician prescribing practices of antibiotics with gram-negative activity were a strong predictor of cycling protocol prescribing practices . Baseline practices were influenced in part by the hospital formulary restrictions and prior approval requirements of the antibiotic management team . There were multiple patient-specific variables associated with on-cycle antibiotic use, and empirical antibiotic cycling recommendations did influence antibiotic ordering practices . In every cycle except for one, cephalosporins were the most frequent off-cycle drug to be prescribed (Fig . 2) . The ability to order cefepime for up to 72 h before getting approval from the antibiotic management team possibly encouraged its use . In the baseline and all of the cycles, cephalosporin use represented greater than 20% of all cycle antibiotic use . Also, a statistically significant reduction in the use of an antibiotic may not be ecologically significant . The high level of cephalosporin use in all cycles may provide enough selective pressure to promote resistance during the off-cycle periods . Additional data analysis will be conducted to determine the implications and outcomes of this cycling intervention . Outcomes, including resistance patterns of gram-negative isolates collected during the study period and infection rates, will be explored in future reports . We showed that a focused antibiotic cycling program could result in substantial changes in prescribing practices among physicians in an academic ICU setting . This is an important step in testing the validity of antibiotic cycling as a way of preventing the emergence of antimicrobial resistance .
This work was supported by CDC grants U50/CCU717925-03-01 and UR8/CCU715087 (CDC Prevention EpiCenter Program) and NIAID Career Development Award 1K2-AI50585-01A1 (to D.K.W.) .
What Is Fermentation?,
What Is Antibiotic?,
What Is Genetics?,
What Is Dna?,
What Is Growth Medium?,
c,
Microbes,
e,
Microorganism,
c,
Microbe,
c,
Microbiology,
n,
Bacterium,
n,
Antibiotics,
i,
Escherichia coli,
r,
Escherichia coli,
a,
Candida albicans,
s,
Lactococci,
e,
Growth media,
i,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
o,
Botulin,
n,
Neisseria,
s,
Campylobacter,
c,
Gram negative,
c,
Neisseria,
n,
Clostridia,
e,
Fermentations,
n,
Staphylococcus,
e,
Bacteriological,
i,
Escherichia coli,
o,
Antimicrobials,
c,
Prokaryotes,
a,
Bacillus,
c,
Achromobacter
|
© 2005
Transgalactic Ltd (manufacturer of Bioscreen C software) |
Privacy Statement | P.O. Box
1393, 00101 Helsinki, Finland,
Last modified: May 25, 2005
| ||||||